{"files"=>["https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/433379"], "description"=>"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Citation data can be used to evaluate the editorial policies and procedures of scientific journals. Here we investigate citation counts for the three different publication tracks of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). This analysis explores the consequences of differences in editor and referee selection, while controlling for the prestige of the journal in which the papers appear.</p><h3>Methodology/Principal Findings</h3><p>We find that papers authored and “Contributed” by NAS members (Track III) are on average cited less often than papers that are “Communicated” for others by NAS members (Track I) or submitted directly via the standard peer review process (Track II). However, we also find that the variance in the citation count of Contributed papers, and to a lesser extent Communicated papers, is larger than for direct submissions. Therefore when examining the 10% most-cited papers from each track, Contributed papers receive the most citations, followed by Communicated papers, while Direct submissions receive the least citations.</p><h3>Conclusion/Significance</h3><p>Our findings suggest that PNAS “Contributed” papers, in which NAS–member authors select their own reviewers, balance an overall lower impact with an increased probability of publishing exceptional papers. This analysis demonstrates that different editorial procedures are associated with different levels of impact, even within the same prominent journal, and raises interesting questions about the most appropriate metrics for judging an editorial policy's success.</p></div>", "links"=>[], "tags"=>["systematic", "differences", "tracks", "pnas"], "article_id"=>145506, "categories"=>["Science Policy", "Cancer"], "users"=>["David G. Rand", "Thomas Pfeiffer"], "doi"=>["https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008092"], "stats"=>{"downloads"=>0, "page_views"=>0, "likes"=>0}, "figshare_url"=>"https://figshare.com/articles/Systematic_Differences_in_Impact_across_Publication_Tracks_at_PNAS/145506", "title"=>"Systematic Differences in Impact across Publication Tracks at PNAS", "pos_in_sequence"=>0, "defined_type"=>3, "published_date"=>"2009-12-01 01:31:46"}

{"files"=>["https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/873180"], "description"=>"<p>Data from October 2006 (A) and May 2009 (B). The top Contributed papers are cited the most, followed by the top Communicated papers, and the top Direct submissions are cited least. The range of 2006 citations counts for the 10% most cited Direct submissions is 28–102, Communicated papers 30–129, and Contributed papers 30–422. The range of 2009 citation counts for the 10% most cited Direct submissions is 81–403, Communicated papers 87–313, and Contributed papers 87–975. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean. Note that the mean and the standard error of the mean are calculated from log10-transformed citation counts.</p>", "links"=>[], "tags"=>["counts", "cited", "papers"], "article_id"=>543644, "categories"=>["Science Policy", "Cancer"], "users"=>["David G. Rand", "Thomas Pfeiffer"], "doi"=>["https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008092.g003"], "stats"=>{"downloads"=>0, "page_views"=>0, "likes"=>0}, "figshare_url"=>"https://figshare.com/articles/_Citation_counts_of_the_10_most_cited_papers_in_each_track_/543644", "title"=>"Citation counts of the 10% most cited papers in each track.", "pos_in_sequence"=>0, "defined_type"=>1, "published_date"=>"2009-12-01 01:00:44"}